IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 7,996,864
`Filing Date: November 7, 2003
`Issue Date: August 9, 2011
`
`Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISPLAYING TELEVISION
`PROGRAMS AND RELATED TEXT
`________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`
`________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION LLC’S PETITION
`FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PAT. NO. 7,996,864
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Comcast, Exhibit-1009
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 7,996,864
`Filing Date: November 7, 2003
`Issue Date: August 9, 2011
`
`Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DISPLAYING TELEVISION
`PROGRAMS AND RELATED TEXT
`________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`
`________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. WECHSELBERGER IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITIONER COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION LLC’S PETITION
`FOR
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PAT. NO. 7,996,864
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Comcast, Exhibit-1009
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Anthony “Tony” J. Wechselberger, declare that I have personal knowledge
`
`of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called to testify as a witness, could
`
`and would do so competently.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of the Petitioner,
`
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, for the above-referenced inter partes
`
`review proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I reside in Escondido, California.
`
`I have been asked to provide a declaration regarding electronic
`
`program guides and related technologies as well as the relevant industry. I have
`
`also been asked to render opinions regarding certain matters pertaining to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,996,864 (“the ‘864 patent”) and the unpatentability grounds set forth
`
`in the Petition for this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual consulting rate of $350 per hour
`
`for my work on this matter. My compensation is in no way dependent upon my
`
`opinions or testimony or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II. PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`A description of my professional background and qualifications is
`
`provided below. An additional account of my work experience and qualifications
`
`is included in my Resume, which is attached as Appendix A to this Declaration.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`from the University of Arizona in 1974 and a Master of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering from San Diego State University in 1979. In addition, in
`
`1984, I completed the Executive Program for Scientists and Engineers at the
`
`University of California at San Diego.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently the President of Entropy Management Solutions
`
`(“EMS”), a position I have held since I founded the company in 1999. In this
`
`capacity, I perform consulting services related to technology and business
`
`development, content management, distribution and merchandising, systems
`
`engineering, and product design in the areas of industrial and consumer broadband
`
`and multimedia technologies and associated commercial systems. As a result of
`
`my twenty-five years of extensive technology experience in corporate life, and
`
`continuing as President of EMS, I have worked with various aspects of cable,
`
`broadcast and satellite television programming distribution, including systems and
`
`equipment that included and supported on screen displays and electronic program
`
`guides in consumer appliances such as set top boxes.
`
`8.
`
`I have over forty years of experience working with high technology
`
`systems related to military, commercial, and consumer communication systems,
`
`networks, and appliances. I have held various design, leadership, and executive
`
`positions in, for example, engineering, operations, sales and marketing, and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`product management at leading companies, such as TV/COM International, Inc.
`
`(TV/COM) and Oak Communications, Inc. (Oak), in those fields.
`
`9.
`
`As Vice President at Oak Communications (in the 1980s), Chief
`
`Technology Officer at TV/COM (in the 1990s), and a consulting systems engineer
`
`(1999 to the present), I have specialized in the areas of digital communications
`
`technologies, systems and networks, including infrastructures, communications
`
`equipment and associated signal processing, network management and command-
`
`and-control, and
`
`information security as used for content management,
`
`merchandising, and delivery to the receivers/consumers of information/content.
`
`Consumer appliances are often the receivers/consumers of the communications
`
`systems I’ve worked with, and I’ve been involved, for example, in the design,
`
`manufacturing, sales, and servicing of consumer appliances, such as set top boxes
`
`(STB), since the early 1980s.
`
`10. My experience includes the development of terrestrial broadcast,
`
`satellite uplink, and cable head-end commercial equipment for television
`
`transmissions, as well as consumer appliance equipment, such as STBs and other
`
`home based or home networked devices. These architectures included computer
`
`control systems for network and associated network device command and control,
`
`and for management of content distribution and consumer appliance functions. For
`
`example, these systems are addressable. “Addressability” enables the system
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`operator to control the delivery of content and network services, network sourcing
`
`and receiving devices (e.g., servers and transmission equipment, and PC or STB
`
`receivers), and the consumer experience. Examples are delivery of software or
`
`data files, for which purchased or subscription services or content is available,
`
`electronic program guides, and a la carte functions such as pay-per-view (PPV) and
`
`video-on-demand (VOD).
`
`11.
`
`I have been a participant in the development and evolution of modern
`
`consumer digital audio and digital video communications systems and
`
`technologies. In 1980, Oak was developing and demonstrating high fidelity digital
`
`audio transmission systems for broadcast applications. At the same time,
`
`consumer electronics companies, such as Philips, Toshiba, Sony and others, were
`
`doing research that eventually led to the audio compact disc. As a member of the
`
`research group at Oak, we shared ideas and information about sampling rates,
`
`analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion, and compatibility between
`
`consumer storage/playback and broadcast applications. In 1991, my employer,
`
`TV/COM, and I began to participate in the newly formed International
`
`Organization for Standardization (ISO) MPEG-2 digital television standards
`
`initiatives, and in the following year, we participated in both the European Digital
`
`Video Broadcast (DVB) and U.S. Advanced Television Systems Committee
`
`(ATSC) forums (which were based upon MPEG-2).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`12.
`
`In the mid-1990s, as the technologies and standards in support of
`
`digital television (DTV) moved towards implementation, the dawn of the Internet
`
`age also arrived. This had a dramatic impact on the way broadband systems
`
`engineers like myself began to plan for the future. This is because the concept of
`
`convergence—the melding of traditional broadband communications systems and
`
`equipment,
`
`computers,
`
`and
`
`computer
`
`networks, with
`
`that
`
`of
`
`the
`
`telecommunications worlds—was changing the communications infrastructure and
`
`technology
`
`landscape.
`
` When
`
`television distribution went all-digital,
`
`the
`
`information of television became simply “data”—and it became possible for the
`
`technologies of digital television, computers and computer networks, and the
`
`telephony industry (which was in the midst of its transition to digital infrastructure
`
`that began in the 1970s) to coalesce. Support for on-line and Internet services
`
`demanded a high performance two-way data transmission capability, and so
`
`broadband network providers began to upgrade their distribution infrastructures
`
`accordingly.
`
`13.
`
`In conjunction with
`
`this convergence, as TV/COM’s Chief
`
`Technology Officer, I directed the expansion of our network products into
`
`broadband data communications generally, from its initial focus on digital
`
`television. Networks became more advanced in order to support real-time
`
`interaction between consumers and various information sources, and interactive
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`and on-line applications led to rapid adoption of client-server information access
`
`architectures. The ubiquitous set top box began to evolve from a minimalist
`
`appliance towards its current status as a communications hub of the consumer’s
`
`media room. This was supported by the exponential increase in the capabilities of
`
`powerful yet inexpensive integrated circuits, such as microprocessors, and memory
`
`that allowed STBs to become more software driven and support advanced digital
`
`signal processing (DSP) needs.
`
`14. This increase in processing and computing horsepower has been
`
`instrumental in supporting the desire for new features and services offered by
`
`consumer appliances, such as set top boxes (STB), digital video recorders (DVR),
`
`and smart TVs, which since the mid-1990s have steadily become more and more
`
`interactive. Interactivity takes place between both the consumer and the appliance
`
`as well as between the consumer and the information sources, such as cable head
`
`ends and/or networked databases by way of the appliance. For example,
`
`interacting with electronic program guides (EPG) and on screen displays (OSD)
`
`enables the consumer to navigate around literally hundreds of channels and
`
`program offerings which would otherwise be a nightmare to manage. The same
`
`guides and displays support interactive-dependent services, such as pay-per-view
`
`(PPV) and video-on-demand (VOD).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`15. As vice president of engineering at Oak and chief technology officer
`
`at TV/Com, I was directly involved in the evolution of interactive TV (ITV)
`
`throughout the 1980s and 1990s. For example, our systems and equipment
`
`evolved from basic one-way communications (broadcast/cablecast) with STBs
`
`having simple red seven-segment channel number indicators (early 1980s) to two-
`
`way communications between the cable head end (CHE) and STBs with single-line
`
`alpha-numerical OSDs (late 1980s) and digital television STBs having layered
`
`graphics-capable OSDs that a consumer could interactively scroll and page
`
`through. Each generation of these ITV systems supported al la carte and/or on-
`
`demand programming access, such as PPV and/or near video on demand (NVOD),
`
`and the latter two examples supported ITV applications wherein the consumer
`
`interacted with either or both the STB and OSD and/or the cable head end. In my
`
`subsequent work as a consultant, I have experience with digital television EPG
`
`technologies and standards, such as the ATSC’s A/55 “Program Guide for Digital
`
`Television” and A/65 “Program and System Information Protocol” (PSIP)
`
`standards.
`
`16.
`
`In my consulting work I have continued to work with technologies,
`
`equipment and network infrastructures for content generation, distribution, and
`
`consumption. My current work involves both traditional and newly developing
`
`architectures and distribution channels. As an example of the latter, I am the chief
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`security systems architect on behalf of the six major Hollywood studios for their
`
`“Digital Cinema Initiatives” (DCI) consortium. DCI has developed and evolved
`
`the requirements and specifications for transitioning first run theatrical movie
`
`releases from film to digital files for distribution and exhibition display. I am
`
`responsible for all elements of command and control and digital rights
`
`management (DRM) for the digital cinema system design and implementation. I
`
`also represent DCI at the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers
`
`(SMPTE), which has/is developed/ing a set of internationally recognized standards
`
`for global adoption of digital cinema. The migration to all-digital distribution
`
`impacts other content distribution channels, such as early window release for
`
`hospitality, airplane, and cable/satellite video-on-demand (VOD), as well as newer
`
`so called “over-the-top” distribution channels based on Internet distribution. I
`
`have also been a strategy and technology consultant to content management and
`
`distribution entities in these areas.
`
`17.
`
`I am currently a member of
`
`the Society of Cable &
`
`Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE), the Society of Motion Picture and
`
`Television Engineers (SMPTE) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE). I have previously been a member of the International
`
`Organization for Standardization (ISO), Motion Picture Experts Group (MPEG),
`
`the Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) group and as chief technology officer of
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`TV/Com International, a voting member of the Advanced Television Systems
`
`Committee (ATSC).
`
`18.
`
`I am an inventor on U.S. Patent No. 4,531,020, issued July 23, 1985
`
`and entitled “Multi-layer Encryption System for the Broadcast of Encrypted
`
`Information” and U.S. Patent No. 5,113,440, issued May 12, 1992 and entitled
`
`“Universal Decoder.” I have participated in U.S. patent prosecution, and have a
`
`general understanding of the process, and of the novelty and non-obviousness
`
`requirements for patentability.
`
`19. Over many years I have published and/or presented a number of
`
`articles
`
`and
`
`papers
`
`related
`
`to
`
`content/information
`
`creation,
`
`transmission/distribution, and reception/consumption in various media sectors,
`
`including cable, satellite, broadcast/wireless, Internet, and digital cinema.
`
`Attached as Appendix B is a list of my publications and presentations.
`
`20.
`
`I believe that my extensive industry experience (including experience
`
`with electronic program guides, television video signal processing, graphical user
`
`interfaces, and associated microprocessor/computer software) and educational
`
`background qualify me as an expert in the relevant field of television. I am
`
`knowledgeable of the relevant skill set that would have been possessed by a
`
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`‘864 patent, which I have been instructed is 1994-1995 for purposes of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`21.
`In connection with my study of this matter and reaching the opinions
`
`stated herein, I have reviewed the exhibits accompanying this declaration as well
`
`as the following documents:
`
`(A) the ‘864 patent; and
`
`(B) the Petition and its accompanying exhibits including the references
`
`relied on in the grounds on which the challenge is based.
`
`IV. UNDERSTANDING OF APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`22. Although I am not an attorney, I have a general understanding of the
`
`applicable legal standards pertaining to the patentability issues presented in this
`
`proceeding. I understand that the Petitioner is challenging the patentability of the
`
`claims of the ‘864 patent based on the following grounds:
`
`(A) Claims 1-20 of the ‘864 patent would have been obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) based on U.S. Patent No. 5,731,844 (“Rauch”) in view
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,418,556 (“Bennington”);
`
`(B) Claims 1-20 of the ‘864 patent would have been obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Rauch in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,583,560
`
`(“Florin”);
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`(C) Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 13-16, 19, and 20 of the ‘864 patent would have
`
`been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on International
`
`Publication No. WO 92/04801 (“Young”) in view of Florin and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 4,991,012 (“Yoshino”); and
`
`(D) Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 18 of the ‘864 patent would have been
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Young in view of Florin
`
`and Yoshino, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,528,304
`
`(“Cherrick”).
`
`23.
`
`I understand that, in this inter partes review, Petitioner has the burden
`
`of proving that each challenged claim is unpatentable by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable if, at the time of the
`
`invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
`
`the teachings of the prior art to yield the patent claim. I also understand that it is
`
`not required (although it is acceptable) that each element/limitation of a patent
`
`claim be found in a single reference in order to find a patent claim obvious.
`
`Rather, for a patent claim to be found obvious, all the elements/limitations of the
`
`patent claim must be found in a combination of references at which a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably expected to arrive. I
`
`understand that a proper analysis of whether an invention is unpatentable for
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`obviousness includes a review of the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the patent claims at issue and the prior art, the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time of the invention, and other
`
`objective considerations.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a showing of obviousness requires some articulated
`
`reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the combination of the
`
`references. I understand that in consideration of the issue of obviousness it is
`
`important to identify whether a reason existed at the time of the invention that
`
`would have led a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to combine elements
`
`of the references in a way that yields the claimed invention.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a claim may be considered unpatentable for
`
`obviousness for various reasons. I have been informed that the following
`
`exemplary rationales may support a finding of obviousness:
`
`(A) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`(B) simply substituting one known element for another
`
`to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C) use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way;
`
`(D) applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement
`
`to yield predictable results;
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`(E) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with
`
`a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(F) known work in a field that prompts variations in the work in the same
`
`or a different field that leads to predictable results; and
`
`(G) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a prior art
`
`reference or combine multiple prior art references or teachings to arrive
`
`at the claimed invention.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that various objective or “real world” factors may be
`
`indicative of non-obviousness. I understand that such factors include:
`
`(A)
`
`the commercial success of the claimed invention;
`
`(B)
`
`the existence of a long-felt, unresolved need for a solution to the
`
`problem solved by the claimed invention;
`
`(C) failed attempts to solve the problem solved by the claimed invention;
`
`(D) copying of the claimed invention;
`
`(E) unexpected results of the claimed invention;
`
`(F) praise for the claimed invention by others in the relevant field; and
`
`(G) willingness of others to accept a license under the patent because of the
`
`merits of the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`V. THE RELEVANT ART AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE
`RELEVANT ART
`28.
`
`I understand that obviousness is determined from the vantage point of
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the alleged invention. I
`
`agree with the statement in column 1, line 25 of the ‘864 Patent that the relevant
`
`field of art is television. I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘864 patent would have been someone
`
`with at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering,
`
`computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and at least two to three years of
`
`experience or familiarity with electronic program guides, television video signal
`
`processing, graphical user interfaces, and associated microprocessor / computer
`
`software. I worked in the relevant field with such persons at, and leading up to, the
`
`time of the alleged invention of the ‘864 patent, and thus, I am familiar with the
`
`knowledge that such persons had at the time (i.e., 1994-1995).
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`29.
`I have been informed that Patent Owner will likely request district
`
`court-type claim construction. Under this construction, each claim of the ‘864
`
`Patent shall be given its “ordinary meaning” – the meaning it would have had to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the claimed invention – in
`
`the present inter partes review proceeding. I also understand that if the motion is
`
`not granted, the claims of the ‘864 Patent, in this inter partes review proceeding,
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of
`
`the ‘864 Patent.
`
`30.
`
`I have been instructed to apply the “ordinary meaning” to all terms in
`
`the ‘864 Patent, except for the term “substantially all of a currently broadcast
`
`television program” in claims 6, 10, and 15. I have reviewed the “Reply to Office
`
`Action” dated February 24, 2010 in connection with a continuation application
`
`(U.S. App. No. 11/064,219) of the ‘864 Patent, and have noted that this term was
`
`expressly defined as referring to “most of the essential information of the
`
`television program” including the center part of its image.
`
`VII. PRIORITY
`31.
`I understand that the ‘864 Patent claims priority to a number of
`
`applications, including U.S. Patent Application No. 08/298,997, filed on August
`
`31, 1994, and U.S. Patent Application No. 08/312,863, filed on September 27,
`
`1994. I have been informed that, for the ‘864 Patent to claim priority to U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 08/298,997 or U.S. Patent Application No. 08/312,863, all
`
`of the elements/limitations of the claims of the ‘864 Patent must be disclosed in
`
`these applications as filed on August 31, 1994 and September 27, 1994,
`
`respectively.
`
` I have reviewed
`
`the original applications (including
`
`the
`
`specifications and drawings) of U.S. Patent Application No. 08/298,997, as filed
`
`on August 31, 1994 and U.S. Patent Application No. 08/312,863, as filed on
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`September 27, 1994, and have found that at least several elements/limitations of
`
`the ‘864 Patent were not disclosed in that specification. For example, there is no
`
`support in the applications filed on August 31, 1994 and September 27, 1994 for
`
`the limitation of “switching the detailed program description displayed in the third
`
`area of the screen in response to a user input without changing the currently
`
`broadcast television program displayed in the second area of the screen,” as recited
`
`in claim 1 of the ‘864 Patent. In light of the applications filed on August, 31, 1994
`
`and September 27, 1994, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`deemed the inventors of the ‘864 Patent to have been in possession of these
`
`limitations of the independent claims.
`
`VIII. THE ‘864 PATENT
`32. The ‘864 Patent describes an electronic television program guide with
`
`three screen formats: (1) a time specific program guide (TISPG) format, (2) a
`
`channel specific program guide (CSPG) format, and (3) a theme specific program
`
`guide (THSPG) format. ‘864 Patent, 4:1-7. Each screen format includes a PIP
`
`window for displaying a currently broadcast television program. ‘864 Patent, 4:7-
`
`9.
`
`33.
`
`In Fig. 2 (reproduced below), the ‘864 Patent depicts a version of the
`
`TISPG format (called the “NOW” guide) that “displays program listings of
`
`television programs being broadcast at the current time.” ‘864 Patent, 5:30-34.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`34. As explained in column 5 at lines 9-17, this version includes a
`
`background area 40, a PIP window 42 (upper left, called “second area” in the
`
`claims), a program description area 44 (upper right, called “third area” in the
`
`claims), and a program schedule area 46 (bottom, “first area” in the claims). The
`
`PIP window 42 displays the current television program highlighted by cursor 48 in
`
`the program schedule area 46, while the program description area 44 displays a
`
`brief program description of the highlighted program. See the ‘864 Patent at 5:37-
`
`41. In other words, as the user moves the cursor through the program listings in
`
`the bottom area of the screen, the currently-displayed television program in the
`
`upper left of the screen changes to correspond to the highlighted program, and the
`
`detailed program description in the upper right area of the screen changes to show
`
`details of the highlighted program.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`35. Fig. 3 (reproduced below) depicts another version of the TISPG
`
`format (called the “NEXT” guide) that “displays program listings being broadcast
`
`at a future time, i.e., 8:00 p.m.” ‘864 Patent, 5:42-44.
`
`
`36. As explained in column 5 at lines 45-52, in this version, when a user
`
`selects a future program in the program schedule area 46, a brief program
`
`description of the future program highlighted by cursor 48 in the program schedule
`
`area 46 is displayed in the program description area 44, but the current program
`
`being broadcast remains displayed in the PIP window 42. In other words, the
`
`detailed program description in the upper right area changes as the user moves
`
`through the program listings, without switching the currently-watched program in
`
`the upper left area. This version addresses the problem or inconvenience of a
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`person losing sight of the current program being watched when the person wants to
`
`view program schedule information. See the ‘864 Patent at 2:37-39.
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Rauch
`37. Rauch relates “to television program selection using a computer
`
`system.” Rauch, 1:13-15. Rauch illustrates the computer system in Fig. 1
`
`(reproduced below).
`
`
`
`38. The computer system includes a tuner 115, television 130, and
`
`computer 100. Rauch, 4:30-34. The computer 100 includes a central processing
`
`unit (CPU) 170, which is connected to the tuner 115. Rauch, 4:61-66. The CPU
`
`170 executes a selection computer program 152 that allows a user to select desired
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`television programs. Rauch, 4:54-56. When executing this computer program
`
`152, the CPU 170 obtains television program information from a cable source 110
`
`and stores the information in memory 150. Rauch, 4:66-5:5. This information
`
`includes “information about a number of television programs,” such as “a program
`
`name, time of broadcast, channel indicator, and description of each television
`
`program.” Rauch, 5:2-3, 5:6-8. Upon a user request, the CPU 170 executes the
`
`selection computer program 152 to: (i) control the tuner 115 to tune to a television
`
`program, (ii) control a graphics display generator 157 to generate a graphics image
`
`of a schedule layout 200 and other graphics portions (such as a text display
`
`window 230 and picture-in-graphics display window 240), and (iii) instruct a
`
`picture-in-graphics processor 155 to combine the television program and graphics
`
`image and send the resulting signal to the television 130. Rauch 5:22-29, 7:38-43,
`
`7:58-65.
`
`39.
`
`In Fig. 2 (reproduced below), Rauch illustrates a screen display that
`
`“is displayed by television 130 under control of the selection [computer] program
`
`152 when the user requests a schedule.” Rauch, 5:47-49.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`40. As shown, the screen display of Fig. 2 concurrently displays the
`
`schedule layout 200, the text display window 230, and the picture-in-graphics
`
`display window 240 in three separate areas. Rauch, 7:24-35. “The schedule
`
`layout 200 includes a grid 210 in which a grid entry 212 is provided for each of a
`
`number of television programs broadcast by the cable source 110.” Rauch, 5:52-
`
`55. Meanwhile, the text display window 230 displays “a text string which
`
`describes the currently selected [television] program from the grid 210.” Rauch,
`
`7:30-33. And, the picture-in-graphics display window 240 displays “a reduced-
`
`size video display” of a broadcast of the currently selected television program.
`
`Rauch, 7:36-43.
`
`41. Referring to flow diagrams in Figs. 5 (below left) and 6 (below right),
`
`Rauch describes routines of the selection computer program 152.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Fig. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Fig. 6
`
`
`
`42.
`
`In step 502 of Fig. 5, a schedule routine determines whether a user has
`
`selected a grid entry 212 (also referred to as designating a program name) by
`
`scrolling through the schedule layout 200 using an input device 120 (e.g., remote
`
`control). Rauch, 11:2-7, 4:43-45. If so (Y at step 502), a change selection routine
`
`of Fig. 6 is performed at step 504. Rauch, 11:7-9, 11:23-26. In step 600 of Fig. 6,
`
`the change selection routine highlights the selected grid entry 212 and removes any
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`highlighting from a previously selected grid entry. Rauch, 11:26-31. In step 602,
`
`the change selection routine displays, in the text display window 230, the text
`
`string that describes the television program corresponding to the selected grid entry
`
`212. Rauch, 11:32-34, 9:7-9. If the newly selected television program is currently
`
`being broadcast (Y at step 610), the newly selected television program is displayed
`
`in the picture-in-graphics display window 240 at step 612. Rauch, 11:35-44.
`
`Thus, Rauch teaches that selecting a new grid entry 212 (e.g., by scrolling) in the
`
`grid 210 of the schedule layout 200 changes the text string in the text display
`
`window 230 and a currently broadcast television program in the picture-in-
`
`graphics display window 240.
`
`B. Bennington
`43.
`In Fig. 1 (reproduced below), Bennington discloses an “electronic
`
`program schedule system.” Bennington, 6:30-32.
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`44. The system includes a video display generator 23 that receives digital
`
`program schedule information from a microcontroller 16 and a signal from a tuner
`
`28, converts the program schedule information to an RGB format, and combines
`
`the RGB signal with the signal from the tuner to produce a composite signal.
`
`Bennington, 8:3-28. The system further includes a television receiver 27 for
`
`displaying a screen based on the composite signal. Bennington, 8:13-17, 8:33-36.
`
`45. Bennington also discloses two different remote controls: a remote
`
`controller 31 with a MODE key 38 in Fig. 3 (below left) and a remote controller 40
`
`with icon keys 47A and 47B in Fig. 4 (below right). Bennington, 8:61-67, 9:31-44.
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`46. Using the MODE key 38 or icon keys 47A, 47B, a user can switch
`
`between FLIP, BROWSE, and MENU modes. Bennington, 9:7-10, 9:38-48.
`
`47.
`
`“In the BROWSE mode, the user is provided with the ability to scan
`
`through program schedule information for any channel, including, but not limited
`
`to, the channel being viewed, while at the same time continuing to view the TV
`
`program previously selected.” Bennington, 11:29-33 (emphasis added). When a
`
`user selects to enter the BROWSE mode, a graphical overlay 111 is generated with
`
`program schedule information for the currently tuned channel 112. Bennington,
`
`11:33-41. The graphical overlay 111 is superimposed over the television program
`
`received from the tuner, such that both the graphical overlay and currently tuned to
`
`television program are simultaneously displayed on the screen of the television
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`receiver 27, as shown in Fig. 11 (reproduced below, annotated). Bennington, 10:9-
`
`13, 11:33-41.
`
`
`If the user presses a direction arrow on the remote controller while in
`
`48.
`
`the BROWSE mode, program schedule information for a prior channel or next
`
`channel is displayed in the graphical overlay 111, while the tuner remains tuned to
`
`the currently-watched channel, as shown in Fig. 12 (reproduced below, annotated).
`
`Bennington, 11:44-54.
`
`
`49. Notably, although the program schedule information in the graphical
`
`overlay 111 has changed, the tuner remains tuned to the channel program that
`
`appeared on the television receiver when the user entered the BROWSE mode.
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`Bennington explains the benefit of this feature as follows: “In this way, the user
`
`can simultaneously scan program schedule information for all channels while
`
`continuously viewing at least one selected program on the television receiver.”
`
`Bennington, 11:58-61. Thus, Bennington teaches the desirability of the very
`
`feature that the patent examiner found to render the claims patentable over the
`
`prior art.
`
`C. Florin
`50. Florin “relates to a system for selectively viewing and interacting with
`
`programs and services…and…[to] methods and apparatus incorporated in the
`
`system for managing selection, viewing, and interacting with the program/service
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
